Time is just a measure of motion, Huxley. And at the event horizon, there isn't any. Surely you must know your picture is wrong because it contains a massive contadiction. The infalling observer is said to see himself falling through the event horizon, whilst the outside observer doesn't see the infalling observer falling through the event horizon. Both stories can't be right. The issue is not fixed by fantasy physics where events occur in some never-never land beyond the end of time. But there again, the gullibility of supposedly intelligent people never ceases to surprise me.
I realise this is tedious for some. But maybe worth engaging with John on this topic because some here might end up believing what he says and thus being very misinformed. There was a reason he got banned from stackexchange for poor quality answers on this topic!
Time is just a measure of motion
Well, no. Proper time (for an inertial frame) measures causal dynamics in a spacetime. Motion is defined by that. But there are multiple proper times for multiple different reference frames, so nothing "just" about it!
And at the event horizon, there is not any.
This is 100% false. You have shown how in an external to the black hole inertial reference frame all world lines (trajectories of objects) have an asymptote at the event horizon, where they never actually cross it. but, those same world lines, measured by their own (clock on traveller) proper time, pass through the event horizon in finite time. Saying that there is no time at the event horizon is false; there is perfectly good time, just that it is decoupled by an asymptote from external times.
Surely you must know your picture is wrong because it contains a massive contadiction. The infalling observer is said to see himself falling through the event horizon, whilst the outside observer doesn't see the infalling observer falling through the event horizon. Both stories can't be right.
This shows a lack of respect fro reality. Sure - relativistic physics is counter-intuitive and strange (some people, including me, would say wonderful). It is not contradictory once you accept its tenets - that time is relative and there is no global universal time. Both stories can be right - you can even trace light rays from the infalling object to the external observer and see how they get stretched asymptotically in external time to make both right. It is lazy not to go through that calculation: if you are capable. If you are not capable then you have no business asserting your minority viewpoint over 99.9% of people who have done it and understand how this physics works.